Jac, it would be nice now and then to have universal appeal. Nothing wrong with that.
What do you call those ribbons hanging in your profile? Maybe you meant to say it would he nice to have that appeal right this second? If that's the case then just super glue an ulta wide lens to your camera and HDR whatever you capture. Heck the HDR doesn't even have to be applied well. If you do this I guarentee that you'll start to produce universally accepted images in no time.
Jac, it would be nice now and then to have universal appeal. Nothing wrong with that.
What do you call those ribbons hanging in your profile? Maybe you meant to say it would he nice to have that appeal right this second? If that's the case then just super glue an ulta wide lens to your camera and HDR whatever you capture. Heck the HDR doesn't even have to be applied well. If you do this I guarentee that you'll start to produce universally accepted images in no time.
That's not true; 1x is a part of the universe, and they have rejected all 4 HDRI images I have submitted. I think what Deb's saying is she wishes one of her images could be accepted at 1x and ribbon at DPC both. I *think* that's what she means by "universal appeal".
Is the "Not posted for screening" bit in your uploads folder the "we couldnt even be bothered to put it out to public screening because it sucked so badly"?
If so - so far so good, 4 of 5 have made it all the way to the "Not Published" folder with one victory =)
No. "Not posted for screening" means exactly what it says, it hasn't been posted to screening. After you upload an image and fill in the details, and save those details, then you'll get a button that allows you to post for screening. Once that's done, the image will go temporarily to an "waiting for screening" queue. While in that queue, you can still change your mind and delete the image. Once the screening crew moves the image into actual screening, it will appear in your folder as "In screening". Then you wait. Then it will either be published or not, and go to the respective sections.
I just checked your queues, and you're correct - you have 1 published, 4 not published. You also have one in screening at the moment.
Jac, it would be nice now and then to have universal appeal. Nothing wrong with that.
What do you call those ribbons hanging in your profile? Maybe you meant to say it would he nice to have that appeal right this second? If that's the case then just super glue an ulta wide lens to your camera and HDR whatever you capture. Heck the HDR doesn't even have to be applied well. If you do this I guarentee that you'll start to produce universally accepted images in no time.
That's not true; 1x is a part of the universe, and they have rejected all 4 HDRI images I have submitted. I think what Deb's saying is she wishes one of her images could be accepted at 1x and ribbon at DPC both. I *think* that's what she means by "universal appeal".
R.
Well I thought she meant DPC challenges. As for 1x, four photos is hardly enough to make a case one way or the other but you may be right. Curious did you apply the HDR lightly or for effect? Also were they all shot at or near sunrise/sunset?
In my opinion 1x is mostly concern with technical quality and DPC is fixated on challenge relevency. Keyword being mostly. You can't just submit a turd that meets a DP challenge 100% and expect to do well nor will the most polished turd make it at 1x.
In my opinion 1x is mostly concern with technical quality and DPC is fixated on challenge relevency. Keyword being mostly. You can't just submit a turd that meets a DP challenge 100% and expect to do well nor will the most polished turd make it at 1x.
Hmmmmm...for the technically challenged (no one in this thread except for me, of course!), would you please provide a precise definition of the word "turd" in photographic terminology?
In my opinion 1x is mostly concern with technical quality and DPC is fixated on challenge relevency. Keyword being mostly. You can't just submit a turd that meets a DP challenge 100% and expect to do well nor will the most polished turd make it at 1x.
Hmmmmm...for the technically challenged (no one in this thread except for me, of course!), would you please provide a precise definition of the word "turd" in photographic terminology?
In my opinion 1x is mostly concern with technical quality and DPC is fixated on challenge relevency. Keyword being mostly. You can't just submit a turd that meets a DP challenge 100% and expect to do well nor will the most polished turd make it at 1x.
Hmmmmm...for the technically challenged (no one in this thread except for me, of course!), would you please provide a precise definition of the word "turd" in photographic terminology?
As for 1x, four (HDR) photos is hardly enough to make a case one way or the other but you may be right. Curious did you apply the HDR lightly or for effect? Also were they all shot at or near sunrise/sunset?
They aren't my really heavy HDR-for-effect shots, no. Two landscapes in Maine, one Bayscape (B/W) in San Francisco, and the 6th-place-in-"DPC User Name" portrait of Whiterook, which is not actually HDR but is strongly tone mapped. All of these images are elsewhere in this thread, I believe... Maybe not the SF one...
I suspect there is more HDR than you think, but the vast majority of it is B&W, then edited on top of that. Maybe. Or it's Topaz'd and B&W. Or just really well lit. :-)
As for "universal appeal", well, I did hit the mark with the DPC crowd 1.7% of the time so I guess that's not bad! :-)
A photo, not a photograph, which lacks substance and fails to evoke the senses. An uninspiring, unimaginative snapshot.
Ahhh...well, at least, I didn't ask for a sample...an example...;-P
Although I do think it would be interesting to know how you weigh your own photos for those that you will polish and those "turds" that you won't. So, my question actually has a serious undertone to it as well...;-)
I suspect there is more HDR than you think, but the vast majority of it is B&W, then edited on top of that. Maybe. Or it's Topaz'd and B&W. Or just really well lit. :-)
As for "universal appeal", well, I did hit the mark with the DPC crowd 1.7% of the time so I guess that's not bad! :-)
1.7% is about as often as I see something of interest on the home page so that's good in my book. Deb you've been here long enough to know that the same contrived images win over and over. I realized this when I won the red ribbon in back to back pet portrait challenges. Some realize this early on and capitalize on it while others say fuck it and focus on making photographs. I'm probably somewhere inbetween but you I always thought of as the latter.
A photo, not a photograph, which lacks substance and fails to evoke the senses. An uninspiring, unimaginative snapshot.
Ahhh...well, at least, I didn't ask for a sample...an example...;-P
Although I do think it would be interesting to know how you weigh your own photos for those that you will polish and those "turds" that you won't. So, my question actually has a serious undertone to it as well...;-)
This site is difficult to use when you're on an iPhone but I wouldn't be opposed to using my own stuff as examples. Heck I have my share of challenge entries that would fit my description.
I realized this when I won the red ribbon in back to back pet portrait challenges. Some realize this early on and capitalize on it while others say fuck it and focus on making photographs. I'm probably somewhere inbetween...
Can't wait to meet this fuckin guy...
See you next week. Union Square 1:00PM, 14th Street side up by the Statue.
This site is difficult to use when you're on an iPhone but I wouldn't be opposed to using my own stuff as examples. Heck I have my share of challenge entries that would fit my description.
Hmmmm...perhaps you are not a fair person to ask this question. Of course, you never make any "turds" and certainly none exist in your portfolio...;-)
The flip side of the coin is the opposite question in that how do you know when the "non-turd" has been edited to completion and becomes a "made" photo.
Flip...Flop...you see how my poor mind works...;-)
The flip side of the coin is the opposite question in that how do you know when the "non-turd" has been edited to completion and becomes a "made" photo.
When you look at it and you feel at peace with it, and your heart tells you that it is alright.
How do you find the non-turds? Pretty much the same way, when you learn to trust your eyes and your heart. It's looking and seeing a finished piece in your head when you look at the "negative", sometimes way before that, when you imagine in your head what it is that you want to say with a picture. For me, achieving this finished piece from the "negative", the RAW that I look at first, sometimes happens quickly, but most often it takes a long time. For example, I recently finally finished this piece:
that I shot in 2005, and I had this finished piece in mind all along, but didn't quite get it right - I finally got it at the beginning of this year. Also, sometimes you don't see potential right away, although usually there's something there that prevents you from trashing the picture; in other words, seeing that finished piece happens at all sorts of points along the way (for me). But without seeing a finished piece, for me at least it is very difficult to work on serious images, either while shooting or while processing.
But really, a lot of times it is fun to just make pictures without getting all deep and meaningful about it, and enjoy just making stuff even if it isn't part of the "exploration". Just a fun thing to make for the pure joy of making stuff.
